
1 



RESTORATION OF THE REBELLIOUS STATES. 



SPEECH 



07 



HON. WILLIAM A. NEWELL, OF NEW JERSEY, 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESElSrATIVES, JANUARY 4, 1867. 



The House being in tho Committee of the Whole 
on tho state of the Union, and having under con- 
sideration tho President's annual message — 

Mr. NEWELL said: 

Mr. Chairmax : I propose to submit a few 
remarks for the consideration of the House 
upon the annual message of the President of 
the United States. 

In doing so allow me to call attention to the 
importance of the issues decided in the great 
political contest which agitated and almost 
convulsed the northern States during the recess 
of the present Congress. Those issues were 
not less momentous than the war itself That, 
indeed, decided a question of mere physical 
superiority ; those decided questions of politi- 
cal principle, which are to be the bases of our 
future prosperitj'. Whatever we may say of 
the prowess and perseverance of our people 
duringthe war, (and they were such as to attract 
the admiration of the world to our gallant 
armies,) we must admit that their conduct all 
through the late trying political campaign was 
so admirable as to extract unwilling praises 
even from the enemies of the country. That 
political contest was the most trying test ever 
imposed upon the principle of self-government ; 
and so well did the people endure it that the 
most devoted worshipers of monarchical or 
despotic systems of government have been com- 
pelled to acknowledge that the strain was not 
too much for our institutions. Indeed, one of 
these gentleiiien, on a visit to this country, in 
a speech delivered in this city a few weeks 
since, is reported to have put off the trying 
period of our institutions for at least a century. 
We thank hibi for his long respite, and only 
hope his descendants will do us a similar favor, 
and as graciously, when they find his promised 
period of dissolution is as far off as ever. 

The military contest. I remarked, only de- 
cided a question of military superiority or in- 
feriority ; but the political, aqncstion of social 



and material well-being. Consequently the 
imn||tance of the latter cannot be overrated. 
Le^Bb call attention to a few points bearing 
upon that importance. 

Previous to the late war and th» political 
contest just terminated, questions regarding 
rights of the States as opposed to those of the 
General Government were constant sources of 
dispute, which time and again threatened the 
existence of the Government. Those contests 
continued from the formation of the Gov- 
ernment to the present day. Their results 
were as generally unfavorable to the continu- 
ance of such a degree of authority in the cen- 
tral Government as was compatible with its 
existence in case of the secession of one or 
more of the States. The gentleman who 
occupied the executive scat at the outbreak of 
the rebellion even questioned the right of th# 
General Government to provide for its own 
safety in case of such secession. In this view 
he was sustained by many able men in his own 
jifirty. who subsequently took part with the 
I niol in the armed conflict, and by nearly all 
that party in both sections of the country. So 
far as political force availed, the victory at that 
dark and doubtful period was with the enemies 
of the General Government and in favor of the 
so-called rights of the States. Many leaders 
of both political ptirties wavered. The politi- 
cians apparently had been so indoctnnated 
with the prevailing heresy of State rights that 
it became a question with them whether we 
really were a nation or a mere confederacy of 
States, liable to be dissolved at any moment 
through the ambition of some powerful sec- 
tional politician acting upon the prejudices of 
the people under his immediate influence. 

\\ e were almost in that condition which 
marked the period of the dissolution of all 
republics, and indeed of all nations. We were 
about to be resolved into our original elements. 
Then what saved us from such a frightful catas- 




trophe? Simply the instinct of national preser- 
vation in the great heart of the American peo- 
ple. That instinct was superior to the situa- 
tion. It rose above the doubts and fears of 
politicians ; as if the will of the Almighty him- 
self was Ijehind it urging it on to save the 
country from destruction it rushed to the res- 
cue of the Government. It not only appalled 
the enemy but it strengthened the friends of 
the Union. In the darkest hour of disaster 
it never once flinched from its original pur- 
pose. It was the people that saved the Gov- 
ernment during the war. It was the people 
also that saved it during the late political con- 
test. As they determined by the war that this 
country should be a nation, so they determine^ 
by the late political contest that no party 
chicanery, that no dictation of men in power, 
even supposed to be originally for the Union 
could snatch the fruits of the war from their 
hands. 

This much was so emphatically decided that 
he must be a madman or a traitor who (jfl^ts 
it. Look at the influences brought toWrear 
against the people in the late contest ! The 
whole executive power and patronage of the 
Government, now swelled to appalling propor- 
tions, were thrown into the hands of the enemy, 
so lately humbled and subdued on the field of 
battle. Every artifice that a long acquaintance 
with political management and an unscrupu- 
lous use of political corrupting influences could 
bring to bear to swerve the people from their 
purpose was resorted to. The Executive him- 
self, with unblushing effrontery and a total dis- 
regard of the amenities and requirements of 
his high station, descended into the political 
arena and sought to bully the masses of the 

Seople into submission to his autocratic will, 
uch an exhibition of political violence as 
was displayed in that pretended monumental 
tour never before disgraced the country, and 
for the honor of human nature and the credit 
of republican institutions I pray God aever 
will again. In the mean time, in every depart- 
ment of the Government the political ax was 
descending upon the heads of men too honest 
to be corrupted and too patriotic to sell their 
principles for place. A reign of political ter- 
ror swept the land from one end to the other, 
in the midst of which the Executive, by his 
free pardons to rebels and more by promises 
of what he would do in the future, was paving 
the way for the return of the lately defeated 
rebels to all the political power and to a higher 
than the political status they had so lately for- 
feited. 

But in the midst of all this the people pro- 
ceeded quietly to discharge their duties as citi- 
zens who were determined to preserve to them- 
selves a country ; and, as during the late war 
they proved their prowess upon the battle-field 
by the bayonet, so in the late political contest 
they asserted their supremacy by the mightier 



weapon of the ballot. By the bayonet they 
saved us a nation on many a bloody battle- 
field ; by the ballot, in one great and glorious 
political contest, they preserved that nation for 
themselves and their posterity forever. Amer- 
ican nationality was the all-important question 
decided by the people in the late contest for 
political power. The period of that contest 
will mark the time when the 'United States 
entered into the great family of nations, with 
power equal to if not greater than any other 
of them all, to make herself feared and respected 
both at home and abroad. In that contest the 
Congress of the United States submitted to 
the people certain propositions for their acce'pt- 
ance, which propositions it considered essential 
to the future welfare, if not the very existence, 
of the Eepublic. After a contest to which, as 
I have stated, the annals of our political history 
afford no parallel, the people accepted these 
propositions, while the opponents of them re- 
tired ignominiously from the field. The Execu- 
tive may yet make a show of resistance to 
them; but he must now see (and if he does 
not it is time he should) that such resistance 
betokens not only a spirit of factious opposi- 
tion, but a desire to cater to the prejudices and 
passions of a section of the country whose 
patriotism must at least for some years to come 
be looked upon with a considerable degree of 
distrust. After such a political verdict as that 
lately rendered by the people, opposition to it 
takes the form of opposition to the country 
itself. If any belief remains in the hearts of 
the opponents of the loyal masses of the ability 
of the people to govern themselves, they must 
surely see that in the late elections a higher 
authority than that of any human law asserted 
itself — the will of God speaking through His 
chosen instrument — the voice of the people. 
Let those in power heed it ere it l)e too late. 

As to the tejms of the propositions submitted 
to and indorsed by the people, they are such 
as the lately rebellious States should be glad 
to accept. They are magnanimous on the part 
of the victors and not humiliating to the van- 
quished. They deprive but a few leading spirits 
of the rebellion of their rights, and in their 
cases the deprivation is confined to rights more 
nearly approaching the character of privileges 
than any other enjoyed in a republican f9rm of 
government. In tact, those terms thus offered 
to rebels lately in arms tend to elevate rather 
than depress the people of that section of the 
country ; as they open a way for the gradual 
incorporation into its body-politic of a class 
of persons who, under proper instruction and 
encouragement, may become hereafter as polit- 
ically as they have heretofore been socially and 
materially useful. But even in this instance no 
force is used. The elevation of the subject- 
class of the South to political rights is virtually 
left in the hands of those who at present wield 
sovereign sway. It is left for the latter to say 



1 1 » whether they are ready to admit the former to 
association with them. All the loyal people 
of the country ask for is security for the future. 
And is it too much to expect this? In treaties 
lii with foreign Powers at the close of the war 
(S the victors in all cases ask not only for se- 
curity for the future, but for indemnity for the 
past. 

The loyal people of the United States mag- 
nanimously concede the indemnity ; but let 
not the late rebels be mistaken, for as magnan- 
imously as .they concede it so as religiously 
and determinately will they exact the security. 
There can be no alternative. If the security 
is not obtained in the way indicated in the 
amendments as proposed by Congi-ess, it will 
be obtained in another, and I am free to say 
one more in accordance with my own individ- 
ual ideas of justice and propriety. That other 
I indicated as long since as the 15th of Febru- 
ary, 18G6, and consists in the assumption ot 
the right by Congress, by a declaratory act, to 
pronounce citizenship and suffrage synony- 
mous ; in other words, to assert the axiom that 
every man born on American soil is an Amer- 
ican citizen, and as such heir to all the rights, 
privileges, and immunities of all other Ameri- 
can citizens. So that if the rebel States are 
not willing to concede to the loyal people of 
the country the least measure of justice to 
which the latter are entitled, that is, security for 
the future, the loyal people themselves will 
seize that security by simply declaring that 
universal suffrage shall henceforth be the shib- 
boleth of American political brotherhood. 

Let these men, then, who by their causeless 
rebellion have forfeited all their rights of citi- 
zenship choose whom they will serve, for there 
are and can be but few alternatives open to 
them. These alternatives are, the acceptance 
of the constitutional amendments, the cre- 
ation of provisional governments, or the ac- 
knowledgment of the God-given right of all 
men to govern themselves according to the 
dictates of their own consciences, uncontrolled 
by any external inlluences whatever. Either 
one of these is eminently just. Indeed, if a 
preference is to be given on the score of justice, 
it is to that one which is founded on the prin- 
ciples which are the corner-stone of our polit- 
ical edifice. That edifice was erected by the 
people for the people and their posterity ; not 
by a portion of the people for the benefit of 
themselves exclusively. Read every word of 
the Declaration of Independence, and every 
article of the Constitution, and you will find 
no distinction or reservation as to the applica- 
tion of the right.s there secured to any portion 
of the people. And this was at a time even 
when nearly every State held a certain class 
of its people in bondage. 

That fact was ignored to the extent that even 
when these- people were no longer slaves in 
several of the States they became entitled to 



the suffrage ; they were elevated in all respects, 
civil and political, to the status of the people 
among whom they resided. It was only when 
Judge Taney invented the dogma that by the 
universal consent and practice of the world at 
the time the Constitution was formed these " 
persons had no rights that white men were 
bound to respect, that it was discovered, 
(because of the existence of slavery in several 
of the States and for the sake of its security,) 
it was necessary that these people should be 
declared citizens by a change in the organic 
act itself. But that change has been effected, 
and now there are no subjects in these United 
tes. All are sovereigns, and entitled to 
ivereign rights. If this were not so, where 
IS the article or articles in the Constitution 
which provides for the creation of sovereign 
rights in any person heretofore a subject? 
There is no such provision. And why? Sim- 
ply because the Constitution recognizes every 
man bOrn in the United States as already pos- 
sessing the rights of sovereignty. There is, 
to be sure, a provision for naturalization ; but 
that is wholly in the case of subjects or sov- 
ereigns of other nationalities. It has no ap- 
plication to our own people. Judge Taney in 
the Dred Scott decision says: 

"The Constitution upon itsadoption obviously took 
from the States all power by any subsequent legisla- 
tion to introduce as a citizen into the political laiu- 
ilyof the United States any one, no matter where he 
was born or what might be his character or condi- 
tion." , 

Now, then, if the States have no power to 
elevate any man to citizenship, and Congress 
has no power to do so except exclusively in 
the case of aliens, does it not follow that citi- 
zenship is the natur.al, inherent right of every 
man born on the soil, and that to deprive him 
of it would be, not only to violate his inherent 
rights of humanity, but to sap the foundations 
of the Government itself? Citizenship in the 
UnjJUJ^States is a right, not a privilege. In 
m^^^Kcal or despotic countries it may be 
thl^HBr, because the king or the emperor 
claii^^o rule by divine right, and thus to dis- 
pense laws by favor of his gracious will. But 
m this country all are sovereigns; all are sup- 
posed to be governed by laws founded on the 
principles of eternal justice. No man can give 
to another any right as by tavor. No man can 
receive from another any prinlcge as by right. 
The moment he does, the nature of the Gov- 
ernment becomes perverted and the principles 
of the Constitution violated. 

In the extract above quoted, Judge Tanev 
speaks of the ''political tamily of the United 
States."' Note, he does not say the civil fam- 
ily. It is the political family to which he 
alludes. His position would not be tenable 
in any other sense. Now, the question arises, 
what con.stitutes that family? The answer is, 
those born on the soil : those who are taxed 
for the support of the Governaient; those who 



are liable to be called upon to bear arms in its 
defense ; in fine, those who, in every material, 
moral, and religious sense, are its constituent 
parts — the units of its aggregate manhood. 
Every man, then, who is not an alien and who 
thus refuses allegiance to the Government on 
the sole ground that he owes it to another, 
comes within the above category. To deny to 
him altogether, or to abridge his rights of citi- 
zenship, is to violate the Constitution of the 
United States in its most sacred and solemn 
characteristics. 

'•But," say the State-rights interpreters of 
the Constitution, '"a State can make or un- 
make a citizen of the United States ; can lim^J 
his rights, imvileges, or immunities, or deqB 
them altogether.'' I deny this assumption in 
loto. A State has no right to deprive a citizen 
of the United States of any rights he enjoys 
as such. On the contrary, it is expressly pro- 
vided in the Constitution that the citizens of 
every State are entitled to the rights, privi- 
leges, and immunities of the citizens of s|l the 
States. Hear what Judge Taney says upon 
this important point in the decision from which 
I have heretofore quoted : 

"And if persons of the African race are citizens of 
a State and of the United States they would be en- 
titled to all those privileges and immunities in every 
State, and the State could not restrict them, for they 
would hold these privileges and immunities under 
the paramount authority of the Federal Government ; 
and its courts would be bound to maintain and enforce 
them, the constitution and the laws of the State to the 
contrary notwithstanding. And if the States could 
limit or restrict them, or place the party in an inferior 
grade, this clause of the Constitution would be un- 
meaning, and could have no operation, and would 
pive no rights to the citizen when in another State. 
Ho would have none but what the State itself chose 
to allow him." 

Now, let us look at the Constitution itself. 
After reciting in the preamble that, "we, the 
people for ourselves and our posterity" enact 
certain provisions of law, the first article reads : 

"The House of Representatives shall b^^ected 
by the people of the severa;! States." J^^^ 

Let our strict constructionists ponj^^Hon 
this. Can the question of suffrage be ctHPied 
to the several States in face of such a posi- 
tive provision as this? But let us see who are 
the people of the United States. And here I 
must again refer my Democratic friends to the 
Dred Scott decision, in which Judge Taney 
says: 

"The words 'people of the United States,' and 'cit- 
izens' arc synonymous terms, and moan the same 
thing." 

But I have already shown that a citizen is not 
made by Congress nor by the States, but is such 
by his own inherent right of manhood. I have 
also shown by the Dred Scott decision, and by 
the Constitution itself, that the citizen of each 
State cannot he deprived of any right, privilege, 
or immunity inhering in him in his capacity of 
citizen of the United States. How, then, can 
a Stale limit him in those rights, much less 
deprive him of them altogether? It can only 



be done by a misconception and misinterpreta- 
tion of the organic act, superinduced by devo- 
tion to slavery and fostered by monarchical 
and despotic ideas and prejudices. 

But some persons may answer that suffrage 
is not a right. If it is not a right, I ask what 
it is ? I have shown that there are really no 
privileges in the United States ; but, as if to 
cover the whole ground and deprive the oppo- 
nents of the sovereign power of the central 
Government of all ability to cavil. Judge Taney 
declares not only that a State has no right to 
deprive a citizen of the United States of any 
rights inhering in him as such, but that it has no 
right to deprive him of any of the privileges or 
immunities of a citizen. What can be broader 
than this language? Does it not cover every 
ground? Does it not stamp in ineffaceable char- 
acters as treason to the Constitution any attempt 
of any State to deprive a single citizen of the 
United States of any rights, privileges, and 
immunities inhering in him as such. 

The first article of the Constitution expressly 
says that the House of Representatives shall 
be elected by the people of the several States. 
Now, if a State can step in and say that one 
of the people within its jurisdiction shall not 
vote for members of the House of Represent- 
atives it has power to say that many or all of 
them shall not so vote ; it has power to say 
that a citizen shall not vote unless he is worth 
SI, OOOor $10,000 ; that he shall not vote unless 
he owns a certain quantity of real estate ; that 
he shall not vote unless he owns a certain 
amount of railroad stock : that he shall not 
vote unless he can read or write ; that he shall 
not vote unless he can speak French or Span- 
ish or German ; that he shall not vote unless 
he is a Protestant ; that he shall not vote bo- 
cause he is a Jew or a Catholic ; that he shall 
not vote because he is black ; that he shall not 
vote because he is white ; in fine that he shall 
not vote on account of any negative or positive 
characteristic it may be in the power of the 
State Legislature to enact to be a bar to the 
exercise of the franchise. How would such ■ 
legislation comport with the first article of the 
Constitution? Would it not virtually nullify, 
i f not expunge it from the organic act? Would 
it not place this House at the mercy of State 
Legislatures, who at any time might desire to 
limit its powers or to confine its jurisdiction to 
such legislation as the said Legislatures, and 
they alone, mightdeeni to come within the scope 
of its authority? 

But, on the other hand, what is the obvious 
meaning of the first article of the Constitution? 
Is it not that the House of Representatives 
shall be a body entirely independent of the 
State Legislatures, not deriving any authority 
from them, nor acknowledging any jurisdic- 
tion of tliem over either its acts or the rights 
of the people in selecting its members?. Con- 
gress has no right itself to prescribe the quali- 



ficalions of those whom it .represents. The 
Constitution does this. Surely it is not the 
intent of tho Constitution to cede away that 
right to Legislatures elected for mere local and 
State purposes ; to foreign bodies having no 
authority over its deliberations, and even no 
right (except the right of enjoying in common 
with each individual citizen) to question its 
acts. I contend that State Legislatures have 
no right to limit the jurisdiction or scope of 
Congress. AVho will contend that they have? 
But would not the power to limit its constitu- 
ency or to obstruct it by laws depriving it of 
any rights enjoyed by that constituency have 
this eflect? It most undoubtedly would. Con- 
sequently, admitting the right of the States to 
limit or virtually to annihilate our constituency, 
and we admit tlieir right to wipe us out of ex- 
istence or to narrow down our constituency to 
limits which would make us the representa- 
tives of a mere oligarchy or aristocracy — an 
oligarchy founded upon race or color, or an 
aristocracy founded upon wealth or intelli- 
gence. 

Supposing one of our great railroad monop- 
olies were to obtain control of one of the States, 
not an impossible case, could not its organic 
act be so altered as to prescribe qualilica- 
tion's 'for our constituents which would make 
it impossible to have the great mass of that 
particular State fairly represented on this floor? 
In the same manner, suppose other great cor- 
porations should combine in other States, and 
steal away the rights of the people, what would 
be the result? Why, that this body would be 
turned into an assembly not representing the 
people of the United States, but a compara- 
tively few privileged persons, who would be 
able, for all time to come, to ride booted and 
spurred upon the backs of the late sovereign 
people, is this the consummation that my 
Democratic friends so ardently desire to see 
brought about? 

The truth is, every nation, every political 
family has a right in its organic act to tix the 
status of its component units in a free Govern- 
ment ; indeed, Ibis status is fixed by the irre- 
versible laws of justice and right, and cannot 
be changed. It was regarded as so fixed by 
l^e/ramers of the Constitution. It would have 
continued to be so regarded by their posterity 
but for the pestilent heresy of State rights, ' 
through which it was sought to enslave a por- 
tion of the body-politic for the special benefit of 
another portion. 

In what article of the Constitution is con- 
ceded the right of any particular State to limit 
or abridge the suffrage as respects the constit- 
uency of Congress, the peOple ? In no one. 
On the contrary, the Constitution provides that 
that suffrage shall be placed on the very broad- 
est basis ; nor does it anywhere deny to Con- 
gress the right to regulate the manner of the 
expression of that suffrage within tke bounds 



of the Constitution itself, of course, but totally 
regardless of the laws of the several States. 
The States are not represented here but the 
people ; therefore it is to the people under the 
United States Constitution, not to the States 
under their constitutions, that we are responsible 
for our acts. What justice would there then 
be in handing over the control of the expres- 
sion of the will of the people whom we here 
represent to State Legislatures which are cre- 
ated for altogether local and State purposes 
and necessarily limited in their jurisdiction and 
prescribed in their action? There would be 
none whatever. On the contrary, in so acting 

«e would constitute our system of government 
ll anomaly, leaving no foundation in reason 
or experience, and so obstructive of necessary 
legislation as to render it incapable of success- 
ful working. 

It is clearly the province of a State Legisla- 
ture, in my judgment, merely to determine the 
time, place, and manner of exercising the pre- 
rogaifce of suffrage ; to guard and defend it ; 
to prWerve its purity ; to elevate and dignify it : 
to prevent any infringement upon this sacred 
right of the people by all necessary legislation ; 
but never to confer nor to withhold it. 

I have shown that no State can restrict the 
rights, privileges, and immunities of a citizen 
of the United States. Suffrage, instead of 
being the least, isthemost important of these; 
and why? Because it guards and protects all 
the rest. It is in fact the covering that over- 
shadows like the wings of the angels of the 
covenant all other rights. Take it away, and 
in no despotic Government is a man so bereft 
of right as in that republic which thus deprives 
its citizens of the only means by which they can 
render their servants accountable for their 
actions. In fact such deprivation reduces the 
citizen to the necessity of taking up arms in 
order to reassert his manhood. Thus you 
prepare the way for revolution hereafter; and 
revol^on which we ourselves have always 
justi^W in other nations, on the ground that 
the fact of their having* no voice in their Gov- 
ernments gave them the right to resort to that 
ultima ratio of nations and men which has 
decided so many political contests, bat not 
without an appalling loss of both blood and 
treasure. Indeed, the ground of our own rev- 
olution was that we were denied a voice in 
making our own laws ; we were compelled to 
submit to taxation without representation. 
Can we compel peaceably on the part of others 
that which we resisted to the shedding of blood 
ourselves? 

But some may say that it is dangerous to 
extend the suffrage to a race illy prepared to 
exercise it. Is not the foreigner who comes 
to our shores totally unacquainted with our 
manners and customs, our political and so- 
cial characteristics, after a short probation 
admitted into full fellowship with tne politi- 



6 



cal family? Will my colleague, Mr. Rogers, 
the leader of the Democratic side of the House, 
who is very ready to pronounce a particu- 
lar race as unfit to exercise the rights of 
freemen, dare pronounce the same ban upon 
the foreigner? But this ability to exercise 
the suffrage on the part of this large class of 
persons must be looked upon in the light of 
expediency if we once drop down from the 
position of equal and exact justice to all men. 
And what will expediency teach us on the sub- 
ject? Simply that though there may be great 
evils in extending the suffrage to the lately 
enslaved race there may be still greater in 
excluding them altogether and for all timefrqm 
it. By so doing you raise up a class of pdr 
sons alien and foreign to the Commonwealth; 
you create a governing and a governed class 
in the United States ; you give the power of 
life and death to the former over the latter ; 
you place the property and liberty of one man 
at the control of another ; you create castes 
and distinctions in society ; you rais|lkip a 
class of tyrannical task-masters to rei^over 
a mass of outcasts, and between both you place 
a gulf over which no man can pass. Think 
you that under such a condition of things 
republicanism would be possible? Think you 
that the evils of an extended suffrage would 
not be altogether less than the evils of a con- 
dition of society, for a parallel to which we 
must only look to misgoverned Ireland or to 
the oppressed and exhausted Provinces of the 
British empire of India? 

Yes, gentlemen, ""suffrage is a delusion and a 
snare if it cannot be extended to every man 
created in the image and likeness of his Maker, 
then is our whole system of government an 
error of such gigantic proportions as to involve 
our country in ruin and destruction. For good 
or evil we are committed to the doctrine of 
equal rights to all men. For good or evil we 
are bound to follow it to its legitimate conclu- 
sions. Where it may lead us no hum^ eye 
may be able to see, but where the o"osite 
principle would ultimately leave us, a stranded 
and hopeless wreck upon the shores of time, any 
ordinary mind can foresee. But we know that 
while following the lead of universal suffrage 
we are carrying out the principles of justice 
and humanity, which are the eternal verities 
of God himself; and where these point it is 
certainly more safe to presume is the path most 
likely to conduct us to unity, peace, and pros- 
perity. 

Some perssns indeed favor universal suffrage, 
but couple it with a general amnesty. By this 
they propose to set off justice to a wronged 
and oppressed race against an act of unmerited 
mercy to their oppressors, who have been at 
the same time rebels against national authority. 
I am opposed to any such bartering of right 
for wrong; of justice for mistaken mercy. I 
look upon such a bargain as jeopardizing the 



safety of the nation, which has already cost 
such fearful sacrifices of life and treasure. 
Salus popuU suprema est lex is my motto in 
this and every case relating to public affairs. 
And I religiously believe that the safety of the 
Republic requires that the leading spirits of the 
late rebellion should bo deprived of the power, 
by simple exclusion from office, of again ex- 
perimenting upon the life of the nation. At 
the South public sentiment more than at the 
North is created by the governing class. This 
arises from the absence of wide-spread educa- 
tional facilities ; from the fiict that political dis- 
cussions take the form rather of oral communi- 
cations in mass-meetings than of printed argu- 
ments in the press. Consequently the leaders 
of the South always speak from their hearts to 
the hearts of the masses. In the North, on 
the other hand, the leaders more generally 
speak to the reason. Thus at the South, while 
the leaders have almost supreme at the North 
they have but a limited control over the 
masses, the effect of which is easily set aside 
by argument and discussion. - To give these 
southern leaders, then, during the present 
generation another opportunity to "fire the 
southern heart" is a scheme to which I am 
unalterably opposed. And especially am I 
opposed to it when it is linked with a propo- 
sition to do that which the Constitution makes 
it peremptory on us to perform; that is, to 
render equal and exact justice to every member 
of the political family of these United States. 

I have spoken in strong terms of the course 
of the Executive in the late politisal contest. 
I was for a long time loth to believe that he 
had really and for good or evil linked himself 
with the political enemies of his country. But 
the fact was forced upon me at length ))y re- 
peated acts of usurpation on his part, which 
have called down upon his head the indignation 
of a deceived and outraged people. It is now 
evident that the Executive, almost immediately 
upon the death of the late lamented President, 
linked himself with that party which had all 
through the war, by every means short of 
actual aid in the field, allied itself with the 
enemies of the country. Upon his accession 
to his present place he and that party inaugu- 
rated a plan of restoration designed to bring 
back the rebels to power, and when thus brought 
back in alliance with the Democracy they were 
again to rule the country in the interests of the 
South and its institutions. The doctine of 
State rights was once more to become the rul- 
ing policy of the country. The States were to 
be restored to that commanding position which 
made them the arbiters of the fate of the Gen- 
eral Government; rebel debts were to be 
acknowledged ; rebel claims were to be paid. 

It is parent to all that Mr. Johnson lent 
himself to all the schemes of the most violent 
partisan Democratic and rebel politicians. 
They loudly boasted that he was with them, 



and that what he did to-day was but a foretaste 
of wliat he would do to-morrow when the pub- 
lic mind had been properly prepared for some 
new outrage or usurjiation. Instead of allying 
himself with Union men in Congress, he con- 
sorted and counseled wifh rebels, traitors, and 
letter partisan Democrats. Every act of his 
administration has been inspired by the counsels 
of such perons. Every attack upon the Govern- 
ment was applauded by their claqucrs. In fine, if 
the late president of the so-called confederacy 
had been in the Executive chair, he could not 
more zealously have espoused the cause of his 
late associates tlian has -Mr. Johnson. The only 
diflerence would be that he would have carried 
on his crusade against the people of the North 
with more tact and discretion because of his 
greater ability, superior educational advan- 
tages, and more extensive acquaintance with 
the courtesies and amenities of civilized life. 

No wonder that the public clamor for his 
impeachment when they reflect on the long 
list of oifenses he has committed against the 
party and the principles which placed him in 
power. What are a few of these offenses ? 

We find him immediatel)' upon entering upon 
the duties of his office, without consultation 
with the law-making power, legislating for the 
southern States in the most autocratic manner. 

W'e find him assuming powers which Con- 
gress only can exercise. 

a We find him laying down laws for whole 
sections of the country ; in fact, making and 
unmaking statutes for the people of the United 
States. 

We find him assuming to decide who are 
and who are not citizens of the United States. 

We find him excluding loyal men from the 
right of suSVage. 

We find him authorizing unpardoned rebels 
to exercise the same right. 

We find him thus handing over the rebel 
Sta,tes to idisloj-al men, and putting the loyal 
under their tyrannical sway. 

We find him thus elevating rebels who had 
fought to destroy the Union, and putting down 
loyal men who had fought to presei've it. • 

We find him appointing men governors of 
States whose hands were yet red with the blood 
of slaughtered Union citizens and soldiers. 

We find him letting loose the rebel blood- 
hounds in New Orleans upon a legal and peace- 
able assembly of loyal men. The result was 
a massacre such as froze the heart of the North 
with horror and dismay, and caused every loyal 
southern heart to utterly despair of his country. 

We find him afterward shaking the bloody 
hands of those murderers in the reception-room 
iA' the Presidential Mansion, while he compli- 
mented them upon the manner in which they 
iiad executed his programme for crushing out 
loyalty at the South. 

We find him denouncing this body as an 
usurpation. 



? th 

bellion to be put down will be at the North." 
thereby intimating that armed force would be 
used to enforce his policy. 

We find him not satisfied with exciting the 
passions of the mob against the lawful author- 
ity of Congress through the press by the ful- 
minations of himself and satellites, but de- 
scending to the arena of stumi) oratory in this 
and other cities, and delivering harangues calcu- 
lated not only to excite a breach of the peace, 
but a revolution of the Government itself. 

We find him, on pretense of laying the cor- 
ner-stone of a moimment to a deceased states- 
man, repeating those harangues at every point 
on kis route, the only object of which was to 
bring the Congress of the United States into 
contempt and derision. 

We find him thus encouraging the South to 
resist all attempts at adjustment inconsistent 
with his "policy," which makes him really 
responsible for the present unsettled and dis- 
tracted condition of the country. 

Such a catalogue of high crimes and mis- 
demeanors was never before presented against 
any executive officer in the whole range of 
history as can be presented by the present 
Congress against Andrew Johnson, Presid^t 
of these United States. * 

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me again 
impress upon the House the importance of t lie 
questions decided in the late political contest. 
Iliey cannot, indeed, be overrated. But that 
one which is really the most important of all, 
and which includes all the others in the scope 
and bearing of its almost measureless influ- 
ences, is that once and forever the United 
Stated is a nation, not a simple confederacy of 
States. From that day the country hikes a 
new departure in its progress toward its final 
destiny 
nation 
missi 
the 

w: 

continc^ 



incnt w 



From that day it stands forth a 
the family of nations, and has a 
fulfill which was impossible before 



who cannot see that the American 
ras created to be the abode of one 
people, and that the artificial incidents of its 
settlement by its present inhabitants intensify 
and make more self-evident the original destiny 
of the country. There are on the North Ameri- 
can continent no great national barriers between 
the diflerent parts of the country. The only 
really gigantic barrier, the Rocky mountain 
chain, running north and south, is easily pierced 
by tlie artificial highways essential to modern 
civilization. In a few short years the whistle of 
the locomotive will wake the echoes of its snow- 
capped peaks, and the Atlantic and Pacific will 
be indissolubly united by those iron bands which 
will be as hooks of steel binding East and West 
in eternal amity. The slopes of the continent, 
from north to south lyid from west to east, are 
gradual and almost unbroken. Its rivers are 
navigable for great distances inward. Its pro- 



8 



ductions — mineral, vegetable, and animal — are 
almost similar in character and species, save 
the natural characteristic features created by 
isothermal distinctions, which are, however, 
gradual and not abrupt, as is the case in other 
continents. As to artificial causes that create 
and foster similarity, our people are of one lan- 
guage ; and if there are varieties of race these 
latter are so blended and harmonized by contact 
and accretion that the marked features of dis- 
tinction which characterize other quarters of the 
globe are in this, if not wholly absent, almost 
entirely erased. 

In fine, while Europe presents the aspect of 
variety in unity, both as regards natural and 
artificial features, America presents the aspect 
of unity with little variety. And this is one 
great reason that great revolutionary move- 
ments in politics, literature, and religion appear 
to sweep over the country from one end to the 
other with a resistless power and efi'ect which 
are often even appalling by the very force and 
depth of their movement. Such a revolution 
was our late war and such the late political 
contest which succeeded it. Let us ponder 
upon their consequences and effects ; but above 
all let us not forget that both settled the q.ues- 
ti^ of America's nationality in spite of the 
opposition of not only the rebels in the field 
and their sympathizers at the ballot-box, but 
of the President bringing to bear all the power 
and patronage of the Government to thwart 
the will of the people. 



Mr. Speaker, it is a source of extreme mor- 
tification and regret that my congressional dis- 
trict cannot claim a full share of the honor 
achieved in the contest from which we have 
just emerged, but it must not be inferred that 
any portion of my Republican constituents have 
deserted their principles. The result was effected 
by a combination of influences mainly foreign to 
the great issue, -by the aid of corporations and 
lavish expenditure of money, which it was 
impossible successfully to combat. The fullest 
force of the Federal Administration was turned 
against me; secret circulars containing unscru- 
pulous misrepresentations of my acts and sen- 
timents, supposititious extracts from a speech, 
not one word of which did I ever utter : garbled 
extracts from my public papers, a base and 
ungenerous appeal to the passions and preju- 
dices of a large class of voters, by misrepresent- 
ing my motives and action in the discharge of a 
solemn and painful executive duty years gone 
by, were circulated without limit. In a district 
of uncertain political chai-acter, ofttimes Dem- 
ocratic, these and other less important causes, 
together with" an unfounded confidence in our 
success, have conspired to deprive us of an ad- 
ditional Representative. But. whilst an indi- 
vidual has fallen, and his ripple will soon sub- 
side, our lofty and sacred principles are imper- 
ishable and will never fade away. It rejoices 
me to remember that I have been their early 
and earnest advocate, and I shall never cease 
to cherish and defend them. 



Printed at the Congressional Globe Office. 



m 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



013 744 747 2 



pH8J 



